Fieldhead Park

Updated 4 October 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 22 and 24 August 2017. The first date way was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert by experience on this occasion had experience in caring for an older person. One inspector also visited the home again on 24 August 2017. This visit was announced and was to ensure the manager would be available to meet with us.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed all the information we had about the service including statutory notifications and other intelligence. We also contacted the local authority commissioning and contracts department, safeguarding, infection control, the fire and police service, environmental health, the Clinical Commissioning Group, and Healthwatch to assist us in planning the inspection. We reviewed all the information we had been provided with from third parties to fully inform our approach to inspecting this service.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who lived in the home. We spent time in the lounge and dining room areas observing the care and support people received. We spoke with eleven people who were living in the home and seven visiting relatives. We also spoke with the registered manager, a senior nurse, a nurse, three care assistants, the cook, activity organiser and two ancillary staff. We reviewed four staff recruitment files, six people’s care records and a variety of documents which related to the management and governance of the home.

Updated 4 October 2017

The inspection of Fieldhead Park took place on 22 and 24 August 2017. We previously inspected the service on 26 November 2013; we rated the service Good. The service was not in breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 regulations at that time.

Fieldhead Park Care Home is registered to provide personal and nursing care and accommodation for 54 older people. The home has two units; one unit provides personal care and accommodation for older people, the second unit provides care for people who have been assessed as needing nursing care. Within this unit six beds were allocated for use by the intermediate care team; this is a service which aims to prevent admission to hospital or to provide a period of rehabilitation following a hospital stay.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe. Care plans contained a range of risk assessments and included details of how moving and handling equipment should be fitted and used. There was a system in place to ensure the premises and equipment were suitably maintained. Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans were in place and regularly updated however, plans did not record evacuation routes if people were situated in areas other than their bedroom.

There were safe recruitment procedures in place and we observed staff met people’s needs in a timely manner. There had been recent increases to the ancillary staffing hours to meet people’s changing needs and demands on the service.

People’s medicines were kept, mainly in locked units in their bedrooms. We saw staff administered people’s medicines safely although the management and recording of people’s creams needed to be improved to ensure an accurate record was retained.

New staff were supported in their role and existing staff received on-going training and management supervision.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People spoke positively about the meals provided at Fieldhead Park. People were provided with a choice of meals, hot and cold drinks. Staff assessed people’s nutritional risk regularly and care plans reflected people’s individual needs in regard to eating and drinking. When required, staff kept a record of the food and fluid people consumed.

Everyone we spoke with told us the staff were caring and kind. Staff knew people well and were pro-active in ensuring they respected people’s privacy and dignity. People were offered choices in regard to their daily activities and were enabled to retain their independence. The registered manager had begun to involve people and their families in the care planning process.

There was a range of activities for people to participate in and feedback regarding this was positive. Activities included; trips out in the local community, games, quizzes and exercise classes.

At the time of the inspection a new care planning system was being introduced. The care plans we reviewed were person centred and recorded an adequate level of detail to enable people to receive care and support which met their needs.

Where a complaint had been received, we saw the registered manager had investigated the issues raised and responded to the complainant with their findings.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the day to day management of the home.

There was a system of governance in place to monitor the quality of the service people received, these included, internal audits, the submission of a monthly manager report to senior managers and audits of the home by senior managers. However, we have made a recommendation about further improvements to the governance structure. Regular staff meetings were held and feedback was gained by way of surveys from staff and relatives.